Where is the US economy headed?

Everyone knows liberals like to spend, so obviously the real responsible solution of cutting spending couldn't possibly be considered.

We all know that the political reality is that programs won't be cut any time soon, not to the degree which would fix our budget problems

Everyone knows liberals like to spend, so obviously the real responsible solution of cutting spending couldn't possibly be considered.

"You should face reality and see that neither party is interested in doing what you call the 'responsible solution.' This leaves us with exactly one choice, raising taxes."

That is the statement of a quitter and a loser.

How about vote out every incumbant next November and replace them with the indeppendant candidate?

"I've seen a lot of the 'throw 'em all out!' sentiment from you lately. And it isn't as if you don't have some small point. But, be honest - it isn't going to happen. And a complete replacement of all of our government officials would be disastrous to our current system. So, what's the point, other than to voice your frustration, of saying stuff like this? "

So long as the majority of voters think like you and are sheep who follow their little selfish interests, there can be no real change in our government.

I point this out as my way of showing to real objective thinkers that there is a real choice, if you have the guts to be a leader and not a follower, like you.

"I'm going to stay grounded in reality, however, thanks. You don't seem to have thought about the consequences of reorganizing our gov't all at once. "

The reality you want to live in is one of failuer and CAN NOT DO.

I suggest you read Bill Bradleys new book. While I do not agree with 100% of what he says, I find his CAN DO approach quite refreshing and most of the ideas contained are common sense.

Chip Somodevilla/Reuters
Bill Bradley

THE NEW AMERICAN STORY
By Bill Bradley


"from "outside the political pressure cooker," with "no ax to grind and no political ambition to accomplish." And once the reader gets past the logy, platitude-filled opening pages of "The New American Story," it becomes clear that Mr. Bradley is not going to pull his punches.

He not only excoriates President Bush for his handling of the Iraq war ?- which the former senator bluntly calls an "oil war" ?- and for leading the country "down a dangerous path toward empire," but he's also scathing about his fellow Democrats, who he says are afraid to think big and "have coasted on the intellectual work of the New Deal" for decades.

"Because their agendas dominate," he writes, "what rarely gets addressed comprehensively is what most people want: affordable health care, excellent schools, adequate pensions, a clean environment, and an economy that generates more and more well-paying jobs. Instead, an inordinate amount of attention goes to issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, medical marijuana, the display of the Ten Commandments, the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the subsidy desires of a particular corporation or industry ?- issues that don't motivate the majority but are all important to the activists."

After drubbing the Republicans for requiring "lockstep adherence to narrow party positions" and pandering to corporate interests, Mr. Bradley writes that Democrats must learn to "assert the general interest" over the agendas of their party's "special friends" ?- namely, teachers' unions (which he says tend to "defend the status quo in school organization, student performance and teacher accountability"); trial lawyers (whose litigiousness, he says, has led to higher costs in health care, the "flight of doctors from their profession, and little improvement in health care delivery"); and the autoworkers' union (which he says has "opposed higher mileage standards" and "opposed requiring companies to shore up private pension systems").

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/books/03kaku.html?ex=1179374400&en=46a2fad69b070051&ei=5070

Well, I am busy contributing to our economy at the moment and haven't had time to respond.

But I take contention with your claim that the averages matter more than the trends/at all. That's bullsh*t. If Bush hadn't inherited a lowered poverty rate from Clinton, his averages would suck... the fact is that the amount of people lowered during Clinton's term, significantly, whereas it has risen under Bush's. The poverty level has risen at the same time as the amount of rich have risen under Bush, an undeniable fact.

There is no reason to believe that tax cuts weren't taken into account, so why would I? The census bureau is based upon self-reporting data, so why wouldn't those people who reported themselves take this into account themselves? Makes no sense.

The numbers are based upon census bureau data, as you would see if you looked at the graph itself.

Cycloptichorn

Cyc, even you must know you're being unfair here. Bush hardly -caused- the tech crash and recession at the start of his term, after all. You're taking Clinton's end numbers, which happen to coincide more or less with the very peak of an unprecedented boom, and drawing from them the conclusion that Clinton's economic policies were an unparalleled success, when pretty much everyone reading (and you) know that it was hardly a government-policy-fueled boom.

I'll give Clinton this much credit - he didn't screw it up, which he could have. But giving Clinton all the credit for the economic boom on his watch, and blaming Bush for the following bust... it's not merely wrong, but dishonest.

Darn stock market is almost half way to 14,000 after just going over 13. What is the matter with those guys, don't they know the economy is in shambles, there is a housing bubble, everybody is out of work, and has even given up on even looking for work, etc. etc. etc.? They need to call imposter.

By the way, imposter, if you know anyone that needs work, tell them to become a nurse or trained in the medical field in some way, and they can find work almost anywhere. Unless of course they don't show up for work, have a serious drug problem, or whatever.

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.

Quote:

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's

My side? do you actually ever read anyone's posts without extreme prejudice? I never ever voted for Clinton and I am no democrat so don't give me any more of the "your side crap"

I don't hear you defending conservatives, dys. What side are you on. You are a Kucinich backer and he is not any conservative by any stretch. Much closer to Clinton than Bush. Be honest, dys.